Investing in a Grapple

Why is a Mighty Grapple a 'Grapple', but a Ventrue Investment is not an 'Investment'. I hear that a Consanguineous Boon is also a 'Boon', what sense does this make?

[ quoted text not captured ] For questions about the sense of this, I will refer you to LSJ. :-) But first, to avoid any misunderstandigs: Because of card text. These special terms have nothing to do with the _title_ of the card. But, checking the card texts, I find that Mighty Grapple is not a Grapple card at all (according to the current online text). LSJ - is that correct? Hardy Range

[ quoted text not captured ] No. See Disengage and Immense Size. I'll update MG's card text as well.

[ quoted text not captured ] First, let me say that Consanguineous Boon is not a boon. Second, how did you mean your question? If you mean technically, like "Dear Judge: Why is Mighty Grapple considered a Grapple but Ventrue Investment isn't an investment," then the answer is "because card names don't count." You wouldn't want Ventrue Investment to count as a _Ventrue_, would you? If you mean, "How come Ventrue Investment doesn't have Investment written on it?", then the answer is probably "because it hasn't been reprinted yet." I wouldn't be surprised if it gets reprinted later with "Investment" written on it, but it hasn't really fit into any set since SW yet. If you mean storyline-wise, then I can offer this: Consanguineous Boon, IMO, isn't a "boon" like the others are, because the others are favors that vampires only do so that you owe them. Consanguineous Boon doesn't need to be paid back, so it's not that kind of boon. Ventrue Investment (from the picture on the card) isn't a bunch of stockbrokers trading monies like the other ones represent, it's only called "investment" as a euphemism for "way to store people for eating when times get tough". And Mighty Grapple, of course, is a Grapple because duh, you grab them. Does that answer your question, or does it still seem arbitrary? -- Brian

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > Churchy La Femme wrote: > > Why is a Mighty Grapple a 'Grapple', but a Ventrue Investment is not an > > 'Investment'. I hear that a Consanguineous Boon is also a 'Boon', what > > sense does this make? > > First, let me say that Consanguineous Boon is not a boon. Consanguineous Boon [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, Sabbat:C, SW:PL/PV3, FN:PG/PS, CE:PTo3/PV2, BH:PTo4, LoB:PG2] Cardtype: Political Action Political Card -- Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. {Boon.} John

So with a certain Gehenna event Con Boons are hosed too?

antero wrote: > So with a certain Gehenna event Con Boons are hosed too? No. The card text was specifically worded to avoid exactly that. Blood Trade, Event, R , [G] Gehenna. Burn all boons in play. No more boons may be put in play. During each Methuselah`s untap phase, that Methuselah may move a blood from a vampire he or she controls to a vampire controlled by another Methuselah. Consanguineous Boon is not "put in play", so is not affected. Hardy Range

not... Name: Blood Trade Cardtype: Event Gehenna. Burn all boons in play. No more boons may be put in play. During each Methuselah's untap phase, that Methuselah may move a blood from a vampire he or she controls to a vampire controlled by another Methuselah. you dont "put in play" CB.. after read that CB its a boon, i think that the ventrue investment question its a vtes joke...well, its does not wreck any deck that VI its not a investment card or yes? enjoy!!!

antero <nom...@jippii.fi> wrote: > So with a certain Gehenna event Con Boons are hosed too? No, because Con Boon isn't "put into play". It still works just fine.

> > First, let me say that Consanguineous Boon is not a boon. > > Consanguineous Boon [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, Sabbat:C, SW:PL/PV3, FN:PG/PS, > CE:PTo3/PV2, BH:PTo4, LoB:PG2] > Cardtype: Political Action > > Political Card -- Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. > {Boon.} Um...oh. This doesn't affect the card in any way, does it? Anyone know where I would find a full list of cards changed in LoB? Also, is there still a list of "all cards with errata" (which doesn't list card-text migrations), or would I have to scroll through all 2000 cards on the WW list to find them? -- Brian

firstconform...@aol.com wrote: > > > First, let me say that Consanguineous Boon is not a boon. > > Political Card -- Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. > > {Boon.} > > Um...oh. > This doesn't affect the card in any way, does it? Not currently. > Anyone know where I would find a full list of cards changed in LoB? http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Checklist_LegaciesOfBlood Under "Card Changes". With LoB, some cards are now identified as "title" cards, too. That list should be pretty obvious. > Also, is there still a list of "all cards with errata" (which doesn't > list card-text migrations), or would I have to scroll through all 2000 > cards on the WW list to find them? Use the .csv (or plain text file, if you like) and filter for three curly braces: "{{{"

I asked the question about Consanguinous Boon and Blood Trade when Gehenna came out and got exactly the same answer. We don't have to like it but unfortunately we do have to live with it. I still maintain, however, that given that the card list CSV has {Boon} written on it that CB is a boon. I do not prevent it from being played after Blood Trade

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > > First, let me say that Consanguineous Boon is not a boon. > > > > Consanguineous Boon [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, Sabbat:C, SW:PL/PV3, FN:PG/PS, > > CE:PTo3/PV2, BH:PTo4, LoB:PG2] > > Cardtype: Political Action > > > > Political Card -- Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. > > {Boon.} > > Um...oh. > > This doesn't affect the card in any way, does it? > a little, an alan sovereign/!ventrues deck would be nice to play.

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > Churchy La Femme wrote: > > Why is a Mighty Grapple a 'Grapple', but a Ventrue Investment is not an > > 'Investment'. I hear that a Consanguineous Boon is also a 'Boon', what > > sense does this make? > > First, let me say that Consanguineous Boon is not a boon. Apparently it is > Second, how did you mean your question? > > If you mean technically, like "Dear Judge: Why is Mighty Grapple > considered a Grapple but Ventrue Investment isn't an investment," then > the answer is "because card names don't count." You wouldn't want > Ventrue Investment to count as a _Ventrue_, would you? I mean it in the obvious way, kind of like your example of why a Mighty Grapple is a grapple: "And Mighty Grapple, of course, is a Grapple because duh, you grab them." You want to be cute but that's just ridiculous. > If you mean, "How come Ventrue Investment doesn't have Investment > written on it?", then the answer is probably "because it hasn't been > reprinted yet." I wouldn't be surprised if it gets reprinted later > with "Investment" written on it, but it hasn't really fit into any set > since SW yet. Mighty Grapple doesn't have grapple written in the text either so I suppose it is just ruled to be one. So what's up with VI? Do we have to wait for a reprint or can it just be stated whether it is or isn't going to be. > Ventrue Investment (from the picture on the card) isn't a bunch of > stockbrokers trading monies like the other ones represent, it's only > called "investment" as a euphemism for "way to store people for eating > when times get tough". Secret Horde's art isn't anything like your stockbrocker analogy either, what is this nonsense. It isn't even spelled correctly after a reprint. > Does that answer your question, or does it still seem arbitrary? Sounds like arbitrary to me

Churchy La Femme wrote: > Mighty Grapple doesn't have grapple written in the text either so I > suppose it is just ruled to be one. Card text on Disengage and on Immense Size says it is one. -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > Churchy La Femme wrote: > > Mighty Grapple doesn't have grapple written in the text either so I > > suppose it is just ruled to be one. > > Card text on Disengage and on Immense Size says it is one. Oh, good golly sweet Jesus, now I can just look around at all my other cards and hope I can find one that defines the card I am questioning.

> > First, let me say that Consanguineous Boon is not a boon. > > Apparently it is My mistake. Oh well, I guess nothing affects it anyway. > Mighty Grapple doesn't have grapple written in the text either so I > suppose it is just ruled to be one. So what's up with VI? Do we have > to wait for a reprint or can it just be stated whether it is or isn't > going to be. I have 3 copies of Mighty Grapple from the KMW set, and they all say "Grapple" on them first thing. Older copies don't have it, but nothing affected grapples back then so they didn't need it. VI will be reprinted someday I imagine. I don't see why LSJ would issue errata when he could just print it right next time--lots of people don't like errata. > > Ventrue Investment (from the picture on the card) isn't a bunch of > > stockbrokers trading monies like the other ones represent, it's only > > called "investment" as a euphemism for "way to store people for eating > > when times get tough". > > Secret Horde's art isn't anything like your stockbrocker analogy > either, what is this nonsense. It isn't even spelled correctly after a > reprint. Some people think the pun is funny. Maybe they didn't change the name because it was intentional and people liked the hoard/horde joke. > > Does that answer your question, or does it still seem arbitrary? > > Sounds like arbitrary to me Sorry to hear that. I like the traits "grapple" and "investment", and I understand that WW can't reprint all of them tomorrow or "fix" existing copies. Meanwhile, I get Alan Sovereign and Disengage to interact in new ways because of these traits, and if they get more cards to interact with later, all the better. I expect Ventrue Investment to be reprinted as an "investment" card whenever the next Sabbat set comes out. -- Brian

In message <1133523311....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I'm not entirely certain what your point is. Back when Final Nights was printed, there was no such thing as an ally "type" - such as mortal, werewolf and so on. So when Abomination was printed, it listed what it considered to be Werewolves as examples. Those cards weren't being reprinted at the time, so this was a useful shortcut. Any future Werewolves were printed as such, and the existing ones work just fine with the card that needs to know that. And Renegade Garou and so on were updated to be Werewolves. And lo, no-one blew a gasket coping with this. Same thing here. Immense Size and Disengage needed to list what Grapples were. So they mentioned Mighty Grapple. LSJ has already indicated - in this thread - that the card text on the website for Mighty Grapple is being updated by him to match, and this suggests it was probably an accidental oversight on his part to not do it earlier. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1133523311....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > Churchy La Femme <lordpor...@hotmail.com> writes: > >LSJ wrote: > >> Churchy La Femme wrote: > >> > Mighty Grapple doesn't have grapple written in the text either so I > >> > suppose it is just ruled to be one. > >> > >> Card text on Disengage and on Immense Size says it is one. > > > >Oh, good golly sweet Jesus, now I can just look around at all my other > >cards and hope I can find one that defines the card I am questioning. > > I'm not entirely certain what your point is. Okay > Back when Final Nights was printed, there was no such thing as an ally > "type" - such as mortal, werewolf and so on. So when Abomination was > printed, it listed what it considered to be Werewolves as examples. So they were ruled as such, got it. > Those cards weren't being reprinted at the time, so this was a useful > shortcut. Any future Werewolves were printed as such, and the existing > ones work just fine with the card that needs to know that. And Renegade > Garou and so on were updated to be Werewolves. And lo, no-one blew a > gasket coping with this. Okay, your point seems to show that certain cards were considered "as such" when it was necessary for them to be 'as such'. > Same thing here. Immense Size and Disengage needed to list what > Grapples were. So they mentioned Mighty Grapple. LSJ has already > indicated - in this thread - that the card text on the website for > Mighty Grapple is being updated by him to match, and this suggests it > was probably an accidental oversight on his part to not do it earlier. So his (or whoevers) 'accidental oversight' should be acceptable when Ventrue Investment can be answered (just as acceptably) at this point in time.

Churchy La Femme wrote: > James Coupe wrote: >>Back when Final Nights was printed, there was no such thing as an ally >>"type" - such as mortal, werewolf and so on. So when Abomination was >>printed, it listed what it considered to be Werewolves as examples. > > So they were ruled as such, got it. Card text stating so is different than "they were ruled as such". >>Those cards weren't being reprinted at the time, so this was a useful >>shortcut. Any future Werewolves were printed as such, and the existing >>ones work just fine with the card that needs to know that. And Renegade >>Garou and so on were updated to be Werewolves. And lo, no-one blew a >>gasket coping with this. > > Okay, your point seems to show that certain cards were considered "as > such" when it was necessary for them to be 'as such'. > >>Same thing here. Immense Size and Disengage needed to list what >>Grapples were. So they mentioned Mighty Grapple. LSJ has already >>indicated - in this thread - that the card text on the website for >>Mighty Grapple is being updated by him to match, and this suggests it >>was probably an accidental oversight on his part to not do it earlier. > > So his (or whoevers) 'accidental oversight' should be acceptable when > Ventrue Investment can be answered (just as acceptably) at this point > in time. Immense Size and Disengage state that Mighty Grapple is of type "grapple". Which card's text states that Ventrue Investment is of "Investment" type? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Immense Size and Disengage state that Mighty Grapple is of type "grapple". > > Which card's text states that Ventrue Investment is of "Investment" type? None. So is there any reason for it not to be ruled now, instead of waiting for a reprint? Yay or nay, what about it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Churchy La Femme wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > >>Immense Size and Disengage state that Mighty Grapple is of type "grapple". >> >>Which card's text states that Ventrue Investment is of "Investment" type? > > > None. So is there any reason for it not to be ruled now, instead of > waiting for a reprint? Yay or nay, what about it. That is a reason. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Churchy La Femme wrote: > None. So is there any reason for it not to be ruled now, instead of > waiting for a reprint? Yay or nay, what about it. There is a standing objective to limit errata specifically to upgrade weak cards (as weak cards don't hurt the game--they just get ignored). So while it might make sense to make Ventrue Investment into an "investment", until the card gets an actual reprint, there is no real reason to errata it to be an "investment". Sure, it would make sense that Ventrue Investment become an "investment", but untill it actually gets reprinted, it is unlikely to become one. -Peter

LSJ wrote: > > None. So is there any reason for it not to be ruled now, instead of > > waiting for a reprint? Yay or nay, what about it. > > That is a reason. So wait for the reprint. Whatever, it's your show.

In message <1133757614.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Churchy La Femme <lordpor...@hotmail.com> writes: >So wait for the reprint. Whatever, it's your show. Erm, I believe that's what people have been saying all along. No card text has been printed that facilitated calling Ventrue Investement an Investment card. If it gets reprinted, it might well get it. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > >So wait for the reprint. Whatever, it's your show. > > Erm, I believe that's what people have been saying all along. So I should just conform to what everybody is "saying all along". Excuse me but it's not like I am asking for some crazy ruling in an unprecedented situation. Consanguineous Boon was errata'd as a 'boon' before it was reprinted, there was a whole list of cards put out with erratta that made them extremely better, or at least more playable, before any were reprinted. Don't pretend that if Disengage and Immense Size did not include Mighty Grapple in their text that nobody would wonder why Mighty Grapple wasn't considered a 'grapple'. Con Boon, Mighty Grapple and Ventrue Investment have one thing in common: The nouns of their card titles are now a 'card type'. Why not rule on VI now instead of waiting for a 'possible' reprint.

Churchy La Femme wrote: > Why not rule on VI > now instead of waiting for a 'possible' reprint. 'Cause while it certainly might make sense, it isn't really necessary. And doing so before reprinting the card would add unecessary errata. I'm pretty certain that the current primary plan for changing cards is to leave them alone till there is an opportunity to reprint them. For instance, it would have been nice for Anarch Revolt to have gotten eratta *long* before it was reprinted.But it didn't. But it did get changed when it was reprinted. Which is reasonable enough. Ventrue Investment might very well be best as an "investment", true. But it isn't an immediate problem for the game that it isn't an "investment", so there is no pressing need for, like, mergency errata or something. So it'll likely stay as it is till there is an opportunity to reprint it. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Churchy La Femme wrote: > > Why not rule on VI > > now instead of waiting for a 'possible' reprint. > > 'Cause while it certainly might make sense, it isn't really necessary. > And doing so before reprinting the card would add unecessary errata. Con Boon wasn't really necessary, as a matter of fact the card that brought up the question of whether it was a 'boon' or not didn't even affect it > I'm pretty certain that the current primary plan for changing cards is > to leave them alone till there is an opportunity to reprint them. Con Boon was errata'd when Gehenna came out and wasn't reprinted until LoB. > Ventrue Investment might very well be best as an "investment", true. > But it isn't an immediate problem for the game that it isn't an > "investment", so there is no pressing need for, like, mergency errata > or something. So it'll likely stay as it is till there is an > opportunity to reprint it. All this also applied to Con Boon only VI has 2 cards that would affect it if it were an 'investment', whereas CB had zero.

Churchy La Femme wrote: > Con Boon was errata'd when Gehenna came out and wasn't reprinted until > LoB. Huh. That certainly is mysterious. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] And if it's true than this thread has a more valid point than I thought.